The United States should rethink its “general election” of the U.S. president, otherwise it will perish and drag down all other free countries.
I have been writing about it occasionally as a reminder, but it was only recently, on March 3, that I received from Donald K. an email on this subject. His letter opened my eyes to how serious the problem actually is, and I understood now that I should devote a full column to the subject.
I submit that the United States will be annihilated if the system of electing the U.S. president by general election is not replaced by a modern workable system.
The United States was born as a result of having seceded from Britain. The American English differs from the British English by minute details, which do not prevent a Briton and an American from understanding each other.
But just as in old times, America still calls itself the “revolutionary America.” In the British “non-revolutionary” parliamentary system, the British voters do not choose their prime minister. The chairman of the political party in parliament that received the largest number of votes gets nominated to be prime minister. Having proved himself or herself intellectually acceptable to the participants of discussions by all parties in parliament and approved by the queen, he or she becomes the prime minister of Her Majesty (the queen), who is then asked by the head of state (the queen) to form a government that will manage the country.
What about the American arrangement?
Let me repeat what I was saying in my previous columns: In the late 1930s, a German physicist of genius Albert Einstein sent a letter to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, introducing him to the nuclear weapons and saying that if the United States would not be the first to build them, Nazi Germany would win World War II.
The U.S. electorate numbers about 100 million voters. How many of them know the name of a physicist of today who matches the caliber of Albert Einstein in the 1930s? Let me be very generous: 100 voters. But this is only one-millionth of the electorate, not the majority who have elected President Obama.
And what about Obama honoring the ruthless ruler of the “People’s Republic of China” Hu Jintao by inviting him to the White House and giving him red-carpet treatment. Why? To celebrate his visit? Is the PRC a free country, not a dictatorship, most dangerous to the United States, to promote friendship with? The PRC is an open foe of the free world, determined to destroy it. So why create confusion among our friends, the free countries, by pandering to the dictator? Shouldn’t the U.S. president be the first to uphold the principles of freedom and democracy in word and in deed?
Evidently not, as long as Obama holds the reins to this country, having received the mandate from a majority of the U.S. voters to be both the head of the U.S. government and the head of the state. Who can stop him in his tracks? The U.S. Congress can impeach him for betraying the high moral principles of this country, but is the Congress going to do this?
Had Obama been living in the PRC and expressed his sympathy for the United States, PRC would have put him to death. But in the United States, his play with a country which possibly some day will swallow the United States provokes no anger in those millions of Americans who voted for him.
In every country, there are those who value freedom above anything else. On the other hand, in a free country like the United States, many do not appreciate freedom. They don’t need it. Therefore, they voted for Obama, who promised them material benefits. They are in the United States by accident of birth or their failure to go to another country promising them more wealth. They voted for Obama. And why not? Freedom and everything it propagates are absolutely of no value to those Americans who voted for him.
Freedom is recent. Greece and Rome are within historical memory. Millennia later, following Britain and the United States. And now it is politically correct to assume that freedom is everywhere.
Actually, countries without freedom are slave societies, in which all power belongs to their owners, as it did thousands of years ago.
Will these slave societies eliminate the free countries, and will the world return to what it was millennia ago?
Meanwhile, in the free countries, it’s life as usual: women are buying luxuries to adorn themselves, and men are making money, while the slave societies are preparing for new wars with new weapons, but with goals as old as the Stone Age.
Let us not forget that the population of China exceeds that of the United States by 1 billion people, to be trained as producers and users of the latest modern weapons.
Lev Navrozov can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.